Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian opposition to anti-Semitism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. SushiGeek 07:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Christian opposition to anti-Semitism
POV fork of Christianity and anti-Semitism. If that article needs to be split it should be done by time period rather than "Christian opposition to anti-Semitism" and "Christian support of anti-Semitism" (please do not create that article). Much of the text has been copied wholesale from irreputable and biased websites. A merge seems like the reflexive choice, but any attempt wade through this swamp would be a nigthmare. The reason that it is "too long to merge" is that most of the text consists of lengthy quotations from "primary" sources rather than a simple statment of the facts. If merge is the outcome, I'd like to request that it be moved to Christianity and anti-Semistism/draft during that process. savidan(talk) (e@) 08:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC) Yes, some of the sources are direct quotes, but that does not merit deletion. Quotes tell us exactly what the author said and that way there is no room for wrongful interpretation of the author's work. Furthermore, many of the early sections of the article are taken from official documents in which the original text was written in Latin. This is about as primary and non-biased a source as you can get! If you don't like the article that doesn't merit its deletion. I am open to suggestions and help in editing if you think there are ways to improve its content. I request that the article not be deleted. Newcrusade 03:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Savidan. -- Kjkolb 08:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Luka Jačov 09:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * keep Although it may be a POV fork (which I am not sure I completely agree with), I am also not sure if it justifies a wholesale deletion. Roodog2k 13:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or maybe merge to Christianity and anti-Semitism; the problem with the merge is the other article is already too long. And if this is a POV fork, then the other article is hopelessly POV as well. The other article is simply an accounting of cases where Christians practiced anti-Semitism.  In this case, I'd propose something like an overarching article called Christian churches and Judaism, and it could give an overarching historical account of their shared history, with links in subsections to each of these two pages.  But, in any case, keep for now. --Deville (Talk) 14:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. --Ter e nce Ong [[Image:Flag of Singapore.svg|30px]] 16:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Christianity and anti-Semitism. The latter should be cleaned up and tightened.  Both are bordering on original research, or at any rate non-encyclopedic territory.  Don't delete, though; there's clearly some good information here.   dbtfz talk 18:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Saforrest 18:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and prune ruthlessly. If pruning is impossible, delete. Metamagician3000 03:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * keep and please clean up not erase Yuckfoo 06:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep -Hello, I am the author of this article. It seems that there may be some confusion on this topic.  This article is written from an objective point of view, or at least attempts to do so.  It merely is listing the facts of Christian opposition to anti-Semitism.  Isn't it a historical truth that some Christians opposed anti-Semitism?  Then, shouldn't it have every right to have an article in wikipedia?  The article Christianity and anti-Semitims chronicles many instances of anti-Semitism committed against the Jews.  This article merely chronicles many instances of when Christians stood up for the Jews.  It is based on good solid sources.  Granted, some may claim that they are biased.  But, can't you argue that about any source.  If you don't like it, you can automatically label it as "biased."  Frankly, ALL sources are biased in some manner, if you think my sources were biased, why don't you check the books out at the library and then see?  Even if they were biased, the authors clearly did immense research on the subject and they did not summarily dismiss opposing evidence.  In fact, they confronted it head on in much of the book.


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.